First hand account

Below is a copy of an email sent to the Chief Executive of RBC by a resident of Haslingden Old Road to complain about the felling of the trees. The email describes at first hand what happened over the 3 days that the trees were felled. It describes how powerless the witness felt in preventing the felling and how the owners of the land carried out the work; some might say in a duplicitous manner.

"On the weekend of 22/23rd April 2006, two surveyors appeared on Haslingden Old Rd, where I live, in the area behind the new Asda site.  They were obviously part of some plan but assured us, the residents, that whatever they were surveying would not affect us.  They even sought, and were granted permission, to enter some of my neighbours' back gardens in order to complete their survey.

Immediately behind our houses to the rear of our back gardens is (now, sadly, was) an area of some 100 mature trees which were home to a wide variety of wildlife including bats, birds, squirrels and owls.  When Asda put in a planning application for their new store, we, the residents, were assured that the trees would remain where they were.  If we had not received this assurance then I and others would certainly have objected that the store wouldn’t be hidden from our view by the trees.  We were also informed by the Hurstwood Group, by letter, that the land immediately behind our houses (where the trees were) had been sold by this group to Asda.

Imagine then, our horror when we returned home from work on Monday (24th April) evening, to find that two groups each of 4 to 6 mature trees, mainly horse chestnuts, had been felled without any warning or prior consultation.  On the next morning of the 25th April, I and some of my neighbours immediately made representation to the Planning Department of the council to find out who had authorised the removal of these trees.  I spoke to a Planning Officer who assured me that he would visit the site, find out what was going on and call me back.  By 16.40 that day he had still not contacted me (I was at work all day) so I rang his office.  He informed me that he had not visited the site yet but would call on his way home.

Unfortunately, during the day of Tuesday 25th April, most of the remaining trees were felled.  We were greeted by a scene of absolute devastation of the trees on Tuesday evening, plus an ugly view of the new Asda building.  Many of the neighbours gathered to share stories of who they had spoken to at the Council that day and it transpired that there was a great deal of uncertainty about who actually owned the land, with Asda denying that the land was theirs and also that they had not authorised any tree-felling.  Some neighbours had been down to speak to the men with the chainsaws and they had informed them that they were working for the Hurstwood Group.

On the morning of Wednesday 26th April I felt I could not stand idly by and do nothing so I phoned my boss and told him that I would have to take a day’s emergency annual leave from work in order to try to sort out this problem.  He was very understanding and granted me a day’s annual leave.  I then went down to the site and positioned myself in front of the few remaining trees.  At about 10am three men arrived with a chain saw.  We exchanged words and the men said that they had contacted their boss, to tell him that I was on the site, but had been told to carry on with their "job" of destroying trees.  However, I remained where I was, in front of the trees which had been marked with pink paint by someone as a sign that they were to be removed. My partner called me at about 10.30am to say that he had spoken to the Council Planning Department, who had received an email from Hurstwood Management saying that no more trees were to be cut down.  As I was having this conversation, two more trees on the site, at a distance from me, were being sawn down.

I was also visited by one of the site foremen for the RG group, who are in charge of the Asda Build.  He informed me that the land belonged to Hurstwood and that he felt as I did about the destruction of the trees, that he couldn't see the need for it.  He left, saying that if I needed anything to come down to his office.

I remained where I was until a Community Police Officer arrived at about 13.20 to threaten me with arrest unless I left the site peacefully.  I asked her what the charge would be be and she replied that I was preventing people from doing their work.  I replied that I did not believe that preventing people from working was a criminal offence and asked her again what the charge would be.  She did not reply but radioed for help saying, erroneously, that I was "refusing to move".  I pointed out that I had not said anything about refusing to move but had merely tried to find out on what grounds the police were proposing to arrest me, should it come to that.

We had a discussion about my reasons for being on the site whilst she waited for her Police Colleague to arrive.  I explained to her that although the Council Planning Department had an email from Hurstwoods saying that no more trees were to be felled, that Hurstwoods’ men were still standing by with chainsaws waiting me to be evicted from the site, and that I did not feel that the trees would be safe were I to move.  I also said that there appeared to be some doubt about whether planning permission had been put in to remove the trees and that we should really call a halt to any more tree destruction until it was clear whether or not permission had been granted.  She replied that Hurstwood were a "very big, important company" and that she "would imagine that they would have planning permission or they would not be doing this."  So much for police impartiality.

Her male Police Colleague then appeared accompanied by one of the site managers from the Asda site RG Group.  The site manager informed the three men with the chainsaw that he had received a message from Hurstwoods saying that they must not fell any more trees.  I felt then that agreement had been reached and that I had succeeded in protecting the few remaining trees, and I agreed to return home peacefully.

Imagine my horror then, about half an hour later, to hear the sound of a chainsaw rip through the air.  I watched from my bedroom window as the three men gleefully destroyed several trees, the same trees I that had been trying to protect.  I phoned the RG site manager who informed me that he was aware that the tree destruction had started again but that he did not have authority over the men, who were Hurstwood employees. 

I went next door to alert my neighbour and we both watched with horror and extreme sadness as a few more mature trees met their untimely end.  All of this took place in the middle of the nesting season and for what purpose we can only wonder.  All I know is that a lot of wildlife lost their homes over those three days, homes which cannot easily be replaced."

If you have any thoughts or feelings about this account, please leave a comment.

Hurstwood’s Response

In the spirit of balance, we are happy to publish Hurstwood's public statement, printed in the Rossendale Free Press (Friday 5th May), to the felling of the trees.

"Daniel Hartley, the group's senior planner said none of the trees was (sic) covered by a preservation order, the land was not a conservation area and, in planning terms the site was in the urban area. He said 'The thinning-out work will allow the remaining trees to flourish. On another Hurstwood site, Rossendale Council has placed a tree preservation order without counsulting the company. This unilateral  action is unusual and, in our view, quite unreasonable. But in the light of this action we felt we had no other option but to take proactive action with reference to trees at Holly Mount House.'"

So was this 'woodland management' or a pre-emptive strike against Rossendale Council?

According to wikipedia, thinning is "in forestry a type of selective cutting primarily undertaken to make the forest more profitable in an upcoming final felling. Most of the harvest in thinnings is pulpwood, as only mature trees are suitable for timber."

If Hurstwoods were thinning the tress, then removing 80% of the tree stock, mainly the mature trees, appears to indicate a return to woodland management school.

A pre-emptive strike – 'lets cut down the trees before the council try and save them'- seems the prime objective. But what was their real concern here? That the council didn't consult with them before previously placing TPOs? There is actually no requirement for councils to 'consult' with landowners before issuing a TPO, although they do have to issue a regulation 3 notice with the TPO which gives the landowner 28 days to object. So, even with the power to object, they had 'no-other option but to take proactive action' – i.e. fell the trees. Does this mean that all the trees on any land owned by Hurstwood's will now be felled? According to logic, they have 'no-other option'. Or is it just this site and if so, why?

The fact that the area was in an 'urban area' is irrelevant; the site is actually 200m from a countryside area and adjacent to a conservation area. Actually, I lie, its not irrelevant. Surely the fact that the site is in an urban area makes the trees even more precious. Even more special. They acted as a wildlife corrider to the countryside area and complemented the neighbouring conservation area. Surely the trees here should have more protection.

The article in the Free Press finishes with a quote from the council:

'We will be inviting (Hurstwoods) to discuss with us the replacement tree planting we would like them to undertake'

I am confident that an intelligent, caring company like Hurstwoods with its record of commitment to the community will fulfil such an obligation and ensure the trees are replaced. After all, what else are they going to do with that land, build on it?

Tree Preservation Order

I am intending to write to RBC to request that TPOs be placed on the remaining trees. Please read the letter below and let me know if you have any comments – I plan to send the letter at the end of the week.

Re. Request for Tree Preservation Order to be placed on trees near Holly Mount site

 I am writing on behalf of Haslingden Old Road Residents Association to request Tree Preservation Orders be placed on a number of trees which lie between Haslingden Old Road and the Holly Mount Site. I have enclosed a large-scale map showing the approximate position and species of the trees.  As you know, this area once contained over 100 trees providing a habitat for wildlife including bats, squirrels and a variety of birds, as well as a natural barrier between the new development on Lower Mills (Asda Superstore) and the housing stock to the North. Around 80 of these trees have now been felled by Hurstwoods and we feel strongly that this area should be protected from any further loss. All, or the majority, of the trees shown should be protected in the interest of amenity based on the following criteria:  

1.      Visibility and individual impact – The trees shown are clearly visible from the houses that line Haslingden Old Road, but even more so from St. Mary’s Way and the town centre. The trees partly screen the view of the houses from the town centre, providing a partial barrier and obscuring the houses from view. They also provide a natural backdrop to the current development on the Lower Mill site, breaking up the hard edges. They are therefore highly visible from an important public area and contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation area, which includes St. Mary’s Church and the Clock Tower.

2.      Wider impact – The trees provide a significant contribution to the local surroundings. Not only do they provide a visual backdrop, but also a haven for wildlife. They are an important wildlife ‘corridor’, allowing the sustainability and viability of bird and small mammal populations in the area. They provide important protection against soil erosion on a steep incline and complement neighbouring trees in the vicinity.

3.      Risk of Development – Given the proximity of the near-by development and the unnecessary clearing of 80 trees in this area, we feel that the remaining trees are under immediate threat from further development. Their removal would have a severe negative impact on the amenity of the area by removing a natural screen and backdrop from a very public place as well as endangering local wildlife.

Although several of the trees in this area are saplings, they should also be protected given their future potential as an amenity and the scarcity of trees left. Given the immediate threat to all these trees from the owner, we suggest an Area Order is placed on this whole area, immediately protecting all the trees in the boundary. Subsequently, as recommended by the Secretary of State, all the trees can then be assessed for their individual merit and classified as necessary.

Where is this area?

The two maps below show the area where the trees have been cleared.

Both maps are from the Lancashire County Council UDP – the colours relate to how the land has been designated. The black circle shows the area in question – A small piece of land between Haslingden Old Road and the New Development (Superstore/Holly Mount) which is bounded by the purple section.

The Purple shading on the map designates an 'Employment Area' – and is therefore available for development.

The area in question falls outside the 'Employment Area' and is therefore not automatically available for development. This land forms a natural barrier between the employment development and the housing stock to the North – i.e. Haslingden Old Road

The second map shows the extent of clearing which has been carried out by Hurstwoods. Around 80 trees have been felled with around 20 left, the vast majority of these being small saplings around the edge of the site. This has effectively reduced the natural barrier which existed.

 

Welcome

Hi – welcome to the blog of HORRA – Haslingden Old Road Residents Association. The Association was formed in response to the felling of over 50 trees behind Haslingden Old Road in Rawtenstall by Hurstwoods property developers.

The members of HORRA are upset and bewildered by the removal of these tress and the subsequent loss of wildlife and shelter. The trees provided a haven for wildlife, shelter and a natural backdrop to the neighbouring superstore development  – not to mention protection against soil erosion and Carbon dioxide sinks.

The Association hopes that by working with the various authorities and companies involved, they are able to combine their resources and undoubted commitment to the community to restore the trees and the natural environment which the tress created.